A spokesperson for the ruling party described the parliamentary actions as essential for gathering evidence that could support future proceedings aimed at clarifying doubts and determining responsibility for irregularities. The interlocutor, identified as Szymon Szynkowski, spoke to a Polish outlet about the ongoing developments surrounding the PAP headquarters and the administration of the agency in question. A representative from PiS was actively involved in discussions at PAP, emphasizing the need to address questions about authority and procedure.
READ ALSO:
– An independent analysis claimed that the PAP headquarters had not been seized and that normal operations continued, including during public holidays, while urging the government to refrain from actions perceived as illegal.
– A PiS presidential figure at PAP headquarters voiced disagreement with the broader strategy for media reform and criticized the methods being used to implement change.
WPolityce.pl prompted a challenging question about why certain individuals supporting the so-called new PAP authorities were being obstructed from the agency’s work. A PAP employee, Marek Błoński, insisted that he had not been seen at the PAP headquarters that morning, though he noted he spend most of his time on-site by the main entrance and maintained that his duties were ongoing as expected.
Subsequently, it was reported that Marek Błoński had positioned himself as the head of PAP. During the parliamentary intervention, the legality of this appointment was questioned, with officials arguing that the act establishing his leadership did not align with established legal frameworks. No party alleged that the PAP’s functioning had ceased; rather, the aim was to assess why certain attempts seemed to bypass the formal process described in the PAP Act, while a separate Sejm resolution appeared to be cited by those advocating his appointment. The dialogue continued as a set of understandings and formal arrangements were discussed in the context of the intervention.
These arrangements included admissions by Błoński that he had not fully complied with provisions of the PAP Act, and that despite this knowledge he continued to make personal and financial commitments without full disclosure of the details. A further point raised was that he had presented a General Assembly resolution purportedly confirming his appointment, yet this document referred to a Sejm resolution rather than a binding legal source, prompting questions about the document’s legal weight. Taken together, these elements were described as creating legitimate doubts that the parliamentary intervention sought to clarify, with the aim of ensuring lawful conduct and proper accountability.
When asked about the potential outcomes, observers noted that the new government appeared committed to its chosen method of reshaping leadership within public media. Marek Błoński, according to supporters, regarded himself as the agency’s president despite the arguments against his position. The focus of the intervention was to ensure that actions taken by appointing authorities adhered to legal standards and to document any discrepancies that might warrant further scrutiny.
Officials emphasized that the purpose of the intervention was informational as well as evidentiary. They highlighted past remarks by Błoński denying formal appointing authority or legal expertise, and asserted that the implications of those statements required careful examination. The aim was to illuminate the relationship between appointment processes and the associated legal consequences, ensuring that any missteps would be identified and addressed. The evidence collected was described as substantial and potentially pertinent to future legal submissions and inquiries into possible irregularities.
In practical terms, the discussion raised the possibility of filing formal reports with the Public Prosecution Service to evaluate whether crimes had been committed by Błoński or others who claimed positions on the new PAP boards, as well as on the boards of TVP and Polskie Radio. The situation remained fluid, with authorities indicating that the investigation would continue as more material came to light and as different locations were examined in the course of the broader inquiry.
Questions were also raised about how the holiday period might affect PAP governance, given the potential for changes to occur during this time without the direct involvement of party figures. The parliamentary intervention would persist if illegal activities or attempts to alter the agency’s structure without proper oversight continued to be pursued.
During the day, senior leaders were seen at PAP headquarters, engaging with the prevailing authorities there. While the scope of involvement by the presidency and the prime minister was acknowledged, officials stressed that the intervention covered other sites and individuals as well, and asked for understanding that reporting the actions of the highest offices was not the sole focus of inquiries at that moment. The overall message remained clear: the process would proceed to uncover facts, clarify duties, and ensure that the procedures governing appointments and authority were respected throughout the media system.
[Citation: wPolityce]